Hi Greg, Thank you for your comment. It is very good to have your support on this draft. draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark defines the AltMark DOH. In case of SRH, DOH + SRH can be used to implement the measurement for every node that is an identity in the SR path. But, the approach with DOH + SRH requires two extension headers and this can have operational implications. The goal of this draft is to find an optimized solution that best suits for SRH. Therefore we propose to use the SRH TLV. If accepted, this document would update draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark only for SRv6:
- in case of SRH there would be a single way to apply AltMark through SRH TLV, - while for all the other cases with IPv6 data plane the use of the HbH and DOH is the only choice to carry AltMark data fields. Regards, Giuseppe From: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 7, 2021 9:01 PM To: draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-m...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org Subject: A question for draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark Dear Authors et al. thank you for this document. I am supporting and following the work on the Alternate Marking method in various IETF WGs. What do you see as the benefits of defining a new SRH TLV for the Alternate Marking method compared to solutions defined for IPv6 in draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark/>? Regards, Greg
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
